Appeal No. 96-0922
Application 08/251,306
patentee makes it clear that the component parts, i.e., car-
rier 30, support assembly 20, and ladder 10 are positioned
beneath the undersurface 34 of the deck 36 of a boat 38 (Fig-
ure 4).
As we see it, the open space beneath the undersur-
face of the deck 36 of Crone cannot fairly be considered to be
a “recess” in the deck (floor), as the term recess of claim 18
is understood in light of the underlying disclosure. Since a
“floor having a transversely extending recess” is not present
in the Crone teaching, the subject matter of claim 18 is not
anticipated thereby.
In summary, this panel of the board has:
affirmed the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Hegg, and
reversed the rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Crone.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007